2016 (11) TMI 764 - HC - Customs

Seizure of three gold bars weighing one kilogram each and Indian currency of ₹ 1,10,00,000/- from the petitioner - Section 110(2) of the Customs Act - Held that - It is beyond dispute that no notice under clause (a) of Section 124 of the Customs Act in respect of the seizure of the aforesaid goods was issued to the petitioner till date. There is also no case for the respondent that the period fixed for initiating proceedings under Section 124 of the Customs Act has been extended in the case of the petitioner as provided for under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act - the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to return the goods seized from the petitioner as provided for under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act within one month from today. It is made clear that this judgment will not preclude the respondent from proceeding against the petitioner under the Customs Act, if he has violated any of the provisions therein.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to issue notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act within six months of seizure.
2. Interpretation of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act regarding the return of seized goods.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's grievance was the lack of notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act regarding the goods seized from him. The Court noted that no such notice had been issued even though the seizure occurred on 4-8-2015. The Court highlighted that Section 110(2) of the Customs Act mandates the return of goods if no notice is given within six months of seizure, with a provision for extension. Since no extension was granted in this case, the Court directed the respondent to return the seized goods to the petitioner within one month, in compliance with the statutory requirement.

2. The Court referred to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, which clearly states that if no notice under Section 124 is issued within six months of seizure, the seized goods must be returned to the person from whom they were seized. The Court emphasized that in the absence of any extension granted by the appropriate authority, the obligation to return the goods arises automatically after the lapse of the six-month period. Therefore, the Court ordered the respondent to adhere to the statutory provision and return the goods to the petitioner within the specified timeframe, while also clarifying that this directive does not prevent the respondent from taking further action under the Customs Act if deemed necessary based on any violations by the petitioner.